OF 


MR,  HENRY  I.  SEAMAN,  OF  N.  T., 


ON 


THE    MEXICAN   WAR, 


AND 


OHTER  MEASURES  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION. 


Dcliv(  red  w   the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  S.,  Feb.  13,  1847, 


WASHINGTON 

En    BY    J.    &    G.    S.    Gl 

1847. 


SPEECH 


MR,  HENRY  I,  SEAMAN,  OF  N,  Y,, 


THE  MEXICAN  WAR, 


AND 


OTHER  MEASURES  OF  THE  ADMINISTRATION. 


Delivered  in  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  U.  States,  Feb.  13,  1847, 


WASHINGTON. 

J     i    G.    S.    GIDEON,    PRINTERS, 
1847. 


SPEECH 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union,  the  bill  to  place  at 
the  disposal  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  the  sum  of  THREE  MILLIONS  OP  DOLLARS  "to 
enable  him  to  conclude  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the  Republic  of  Mexico,"  with  the  proviso  of  Mr. 
WILMOT  "  that  there  shall  be  neither  SLAVERY  nor  INVOLUNTARY  SERVITUDE  in  any  territory  on 
the  Continent  of  America  which  shall  hereafter  be  acquired  by,  or  annexed  to,  the  United  States 
by  virtue  of  this  appropriation,  or  in  any  other  manner  whatsoever,"  being  under  discussion — 

MR.  SEAMAN  said  : 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  :  Some  of  the  measures  of  this  Congress  are  as  extra 
ordinary  as  they  are  important.  The  acquisition  of  territory  by  annexation 
and  compromise — a  change  in  our  system  of  keeping  and  disbursing  the 
public  moneys — an  entire  remodelling  of  our  revenue  laws — a  war  of  con 
quest,  and  a  national  debt,  are  among  its  prominent  features.  We  have 
escaped  a  war  with  England,  and  are  engaged  in  a  war  with  Mexico. 
Some  of  these  measures  are  grave  and  great  questions.  As  I  have 
and  am  to  take  my  part,  with  others,  in  disposing  of  these  measures,  I 
claim  the  right  to  give  my  views  to  this  House  and  to  the  country  upon 
some  of  them.  I  do  not  expect  to  bring  to  the  discussion  of  these  topics 
any  thing  that  is  new  or  interesting;  but  1  shall  speak  freely,  and,  I  trust, 
honestly. 

The  objects  contemplated  by  this  bill  are  of  momentous  importance.  It 
is  said  by  some  of  its  friends  that  it  involves  the  grave  question  of  peace  or 
war,  and  by  others  that  of  freedom  or  slavery.  Never  since  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  Government  have  subjects  of  a  more  grave  character  than  these 
been  presented  to  the  consideration  of  Congress.  And  I  believe  that  pos 
terity  will  point  to  the  29th  Congress  as  an  era  in  our  national  history. 
Sir,  I  trust  a  gracious  Providence  will  overrule  all  for  good;  but  1  fear  the 
result  will  be  otherwise. 

It  is  claimed,  by  the  friends  of  this  bill,  that  it  will  place  at  the  disposal 
of  the  President  the  means  of  securing  a  peace  with  Mexico.  I  do  not  be 
lieve  that  a  result  so  desirable  will  flow  from  it.  Suppose  the  bill  of  the 
last  session  had  become  a  law,  does  any  one  believe  that  we  would  have 
had  a  peace  with  Mexico  before  this?  No,  sir;  no  one  thinks  so.  But, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  shall  give  the  same  vote  now  I  gave  the  last  session,  and, 
with  the  proviso  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  WILMOT)  added 
to  the  bill,  I  intend  to  vote  for  it.  I  confess,!  care  but  little  what  be  comes 
of  the  bill  as  reported,  for  I  look  for  no  beneficial  result  from  it;  but  I  am 
ready  to  go  with  him  who  will  go  the  farthest  in  efforts  to  secure  a  peace, 


and  the  President  shall  not  charge  me  with  withholding  from  him  the  re 
quisite  means  of  terminating  hostilities.     But,  sir,  I  will  hold  him  to  a  strict 
account  before  the  country  for  the  disposition  he  makes  of  the  money ,  should 
the  bill  become  a  law. 

While  I  feel  no  interest  in  the  bill,  I  do  feel  a  deep  interest  in  the  proviso. 
I  regard  the  bill  as  something  bordering  on  the  ridiculous.  To  what  purpose 
is  the  money  to  be  applied — to  whom  is  it  to  be  paid?  If^|  is?  tqf  Iffi^e,  the 
Mexican  General,  and  make  him  a  traitor  to  his  country,  then,  sif3  it  is  as 
wicked  as  it  is  ridiculous.  Is  this  the  honorable  peace  which  we  hear  so 
much  about  ?  Perhaps,  sir,  it  is  a  part  of  the  contract  made  with  Santa 
Anna,  and  the  President  may  think  it  would  be  dishonorable  in  him  not  to 
comply. 

Mr.  Chairman,  since  I  took  my  seat  in  this  House  1  have  not  given  a 
vote  which  1  consider  of  more  importance  than  the  vote  upon  this  proviso; 
and,  should  I  remain  here  a  dozen  years,  I  do  not  believe  I  should  be  called 
upon  to  give  one  which  those  who  come  after  us  will  consider  as  equally  impor 
tant.  The  passage  of  it  by  this  Congress  (which  I  hardly  dare  hope  for) 
will  exert  a  great  moral  influence  upon  this  country, arid,  I  may  say,  upon 
the  world;  and  however  the  money  part  of  the  bill  may  subject  us  to  suspi 
cion  and  ridicule,  the  moral  influence  which  the  proviso  will  exert,  will 
compensate  for  it  all,  and  even  more,  and  will  determine  me  to  vote  for 
both,  as  both  must  go  together.  The  bill  requires  "  that  full  and  accurate 
account  of  these  expenditures  shall  be  by  the  President  transmitted  to  Con 
gress  as  soon  as  practicable."  1  dare  not  believe  that  the  President  will 
dispose  of  this  money  in  a  way  inconsistent  with  his  high  office,  and  dis 
honorable  to  the  country.  He  must  account  to  Congress  for  the  use  he 
makes  of  it. 

This  question  of  slavery  is  not  a  question  merely  of  policy;  it  is  a  ques 
tion  of  principle.  Human  freedom  and  the  rights  of  man  are  involved  in 
it.  To  my  mind  it  contravenes  the  great  law  of  nature.  It  is  not  consis 
tent  with  the  great  principles  of  our  holy  faith,  and  it  gives  the  lie  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence.  I  have  no  desire  to  be  drawn  into  a  discus 
sion  of  slavery,  as  guarantied  to  the  old  States  under  the  Constitution.  I 
do  not  feel  myself  competent  to  the  task.  It  is  a  question  we  have  nothing 
to  do  with  here.  The  matter  which  we  now  have  to  consider  is,  the  ac 
quisition  of  territory,  and  whether  slavery  shall  be  permitted  in  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  was  one  of  fifty-eight  who,  on  the  10th  December, 
1845,  voted  against  the  admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union.  I  have  never 
regretted  I  gave  that  vote,  and  I  do  not  believe  I  ever  shall.  I  then  con 
sidered,  as  I  do  now,  that  the  faith  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
was  pledged  to  Texas  by  the  joint  resolutions,  approved  March  1st,  1845, 
to  admit  her  into  the  Union,  provided,  when  she  presented  herself  with  her 
Constitution  for  admission,  there  was  nothing  in  it  inconsistent  with  those 
resolutions.  But,  sir,  I  found  in  her  Constitution,  among  other  objection 
able  features,  a  provision  "  that  the  Legislature  shall  have  no  power  to  pass 
laws  for  the  emancipation  of  slaves,"  &c.,  &c.  As  far  back  as  1824  or  '5r 
hy  a  decree  of  the  Mexican  Government,  slavery  was  abolished  in  all  her 
provinces,  including  Texas.  When  the  final  act  of  annexation  was  to  be 
accomplished,  at  the  period  I  have  referred  to,  our  votes  were  invoked  to 


expel  this  extensive  region  "  from  the  area  of  freedom,"  and  to  perpetuate 
slavery  over  its  entire  surface,  in  violation  of  the  spirit  and  letter  of  the 
joint  resolutions  admitting  her  into  (he  Union.  For  these  reasons,  and  others 
which  I  might  state,  I  voted  against  admitting  her  into  the  Union.  Had  a 
majority  of  this  House  voted  with  me,  this  war  with  Mexico  would  have 
been  avoided. 

With  this  lesson  before  us,  we  are  told  that  this  proviso  is  premature;  that 
we  ought,  to  wait  until  we  get  the  territory  before  we  legislate  about  it.  Sir, 
as  a  northern  man,  I  do  not  think  it  is  ever  premature  to  enact  laws  to  keep 
slavery  within  its  present  limits.  The  North  never  will  consent  to  a  further 
extension  of  the  institution ;  and,  if  any  of  those  who  represent  her  inteiests 
on  this  floor  prove  " traitors,"  I  leave  them  to  the  tender  mercies  of  their 
constituents. 

I  have  no  desire  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any  member  of  this  House,  but 
this  is  a  question  which  must  be  met,  and  this  I  consider  the  very  time  to 
meet  it,  when  we  are  about  to  have  an  extensive  region  added  to  our  terri 
tory;  and,  should  we  defer  any  longer  some  definite  action  upon  it,  we  are 
only  putting  off  the  evil  day. 

I  will  not  disguise  the  fact,  that  I  have  an  abhorrence  of  slavery.  It  is  a 
moral  evil,  which  God  has  permitted,  in  his  inscrutable  wisdom,  for  some 
wise  purpose,  and  which  some  succeeding  age  may  see  developed.  I  can 
not  discover  in  it  one  redeeming  principle,  and  I  firmly  believe  that,  under 
the  benign  influence  of  the  Gospel,  it  will  one  day  cease  to  exist.  When  I 
hear  honorable  members  of  this  House  speak  of  it  as  " God's  own  institu 
tion,"  and  argue  that  "slaves  are  property,"  comparing  them  to  "horses, 
houses,  and  carriages,"  this,  too,  with  the  Bible,  and  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence,  "read  and  known  of  all,"  there  is,  to  my  mind,  something  anti- 
christian  and  anti-republican  in  it.  Perhaps  my  feelings  may  be  over-sensi 
tive  on  the  subject,  but  there  are  scenes  enacted  here,  in  this  capital  of  the 
nation,  and  almost  under  the  dome  of  this  temple,  consecrated  to  liberty,  at 
which  humanity  shudders  and  weeps.  I  could  relate  an  occurrence  which 
took  place  in  this  city  a  few  days  since,  and  was  witnessed  by  myself  and 
other  members  of  this  House.  But  the  recital  would  be  as  offensive  to 
gentlemen  from  the  South,  as  it  was  disgusting  to  those  who  witnessed  it. 
I  would  not  be  understood  as  supposing  that  scenes  like  this  are  of  frequent 
occurrence.  God  forbid  that  they  should  be;  but  it  is  enough  for  me  to 
have  witnessed  one  such,  and  to  know  that  they  are  incident  to  slavery.  It 
is  scenes  like  this  which  make  men  of  the  North  believe  that  slavery 

"  Is  a  monster  of  such  hideous  mien, 

That  to  be  hated  needs  but  to  be  seen." 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  United  States  is  at  war  with  a  sister  republic — it  is 
said  that  it  was  forced  upon  us  by  the  act  of  Mexico.  We  are  told  in  the 
Bible  that  "war  springs  from  our  lusts."  I  think  this  Mexican  war  is  a  con 
firmation  of  the  truth  of  Scripture.  How  was  this  war  brought  upon  us? 
It  had  its  origin  in  the  annexation  of  Texas,  and  is  to  be  carried  on  to  per 
petuate  the  principles  of  that  measure — slavery,  and  extension  of  territory. 
The  consequences  of  that  unwise  measure  were  predicted,  with  remarkable 
accuracy,  by  the  great  statesman  of  Kentucky, 


In  Mr.  Clay's  Raleigh  letter,  on  the  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas,, 
he  used  the  following  words: 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  were  to  acquire  Texas,, 
it  would  acquire  along  with  it  all  the  incumbrances  which  Texas  is  under,  and  among  them  the 
actual  or  suspended  war  between  Mexico  and  Texas.  Of  that  consequence  there  cannot  be  a 
doubt.  Annexation  and  war  with  Mexico  are  identical.  Now,  for  one,  I  certainly  am  not  willing 
to  involve  the  country  in  a  foreign  war  for  the  object  of  acquiring  Texas.  *  *  *  I  regard  all 
wars  as  great  calamities,  to  be  avoided,  if  possible,  and  honorable  peace  as  the  wisest  and  truest 
policy  of  the  country." 

In  another  part  of  the  same  letter,  Mr.  Clay  said,  that  the  consequence  of 
annexation  would  be  to  involve  us  " certainly  in  war  with  Mexico." 

This  great  man  was  not  alone  on  this  question;  others,  the  greatest  minds, 
and  (he  best  men  of  the  country,  were  found  side  by  side  with  him.  It 
would  seem  that  they  were  gifted  with  prophetic  vision.  His  integrity  on 
this  question  lost  him  the  Presidency.  Had  he  been  placed  in  the  Execu 
tive  chair,  which  his  talents,  and  long  services  to  his  country,  entitled  him 
to  be,  this  war  ^ould  not  have  had  an  existence. 

I  question  if  any  man  in  the  country,  divested  of  party  feeling,  and  whose 
opinion  is  entitled  to  the  least  consideration,  will  contend  that  we  would 
have  had  this  war  with  Mexico  if  General  Taylor  had  not  been  ordered  to 
advance  from  Corpus  Christ!  to  Matamoras.  It  is  folly  to  suppose  that 
this  feeble  and  faction-torn  [eople,  which  had  for  seven  years  neglected  to 
assert  her  declared  right  over  Texas,  should  attempt  its  invasion  after  the 
annexation  of  that  province  to  the  United  States.  No  man  can  for  one  mo 
ment  credit  such  an  absurdity.  We  are  not  left  to  conjecture  upon  this  point. 
She  was  ready  to  negotiate  the  question  of  boundary  if  the  United  States 
would  send  a  special  minister  for  that  purpose.  The  resolution  of  annexa 
tion  left  the  question  of  boundary  open  to  negotiation,  and  certainly  inti 
mated  to  Mexico  a  desire,  on  the  part  of  Congress,  to  settle  with  her  upon 
amicable  terms.  Had  the  President  yielded  a  mere  point  of  etiquette,  and 
sent  a  special  minister  to  Mexico,  a  resort  to  arms  would  have  been  avoided. 
But  no,  the  President  had  his  own  plans  to  carry  out,  and  this  war  is  the 
consequence.  All  the  causes  which  are  enumerated  by  the  President  in 
vindication  of  his  course,  had  existed  for  a  long  term  of  years,  and  yet  no 
one,  either  in  Mexico  or  this  country,  believed  that  a  war  would  result  from 
them.  Most  of  cur  difficulties  had  been  settled  by  negotiation,  although 
some  portion  of  the  stipulated  indemnity  remained  unpaid;  but  was  that  a 
sufficient  cause  for  war?  Certainly  not.  The  real  cause  was,  as  I  have 
stated,  in  ordering  General  Taylor  to  advance  to  the  Rio  Grande.  Here 
was  the  fatal  error.  It  was  the  first  act  of  hostility,  and  the  President  must 
have  known  that  it  would  bring  a  collision;  and,  from  the  orders  issued  by 
the  Navy  and  War  Departments,  about  that  time,  he  evidently  intended 
that  it  should.  Certainly,  u  we  began  the  process  by  planting  our  army 
in  the  midst  of  Mexican  plantations  and  homesteads,  driving  before  us  her 
citizens,  her  soldiers,  and  her  civil  authorities.  A  collision  having  neces 
sarily  supervened  on  Mexican  ground,  between  armed  detachments  of  both 
nations,  war  did  most  *  naturally'  follow." 


I  have  ever  entertained  but  one  opinion  of  this  war — that  it  was  provoked 
by  the  President — was  unnecessary  and  unjust,  and  that  it  is  waged  for 
conquest.  The  President  says,  in  his  annual  message,  that  those  who  en 
tertain  such  opinions,  and  assert  them,  are  extending  " aid  and  comfort  to 
the  enemy."  Why,  sir,  has  it  come  to  this,  that  the  Congress  of  the  Uni 
ted  States,  when  such  a  grave  question  as  war  is  before  it,  must  withhold 
all  opposition  to  the  Executive  measures,  or  rest  under  the  imputation  of 
being  enemies  to  their  country?  Freedom  of  discussion  is  a  cherished  prin 
ciple  with  the  American  people,  and  the  man  who  would  deprive  them  of 
it,  needs  but  the  opportunity  to  play  the  tyrant. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  heard  a  great  deal  said  about  the  law  of  nations, 
and  the  rights  of  the  conqueror  over  the  conquered;  and  we  have  heard 
ingenious  arguments  in  support  of  our  rights  over  the  conquered  provinces 
of  Mexico.  Well,  this  may  be  all  so;  but  1  contend  that  we  have  no  rights, 
if  the  war  was  wrong  and  unjust  in  its  inception,  and  such  I  contend  it  was. 
I  do  not  profess  to  know  much  about  the  law  of  nations,  but  I  do  profess  to 
know  something  of  that  great  moral  law,  which  is  binding  upon  men  and 
angels.  Nations  are  made  up  of  individuals,  and  the  obligations  of  this 
law  are  as  binding  upon  one  as  much  as  the  other,  and  each  are  responsible 
to  a  higher  power  than  the  mere  opinion  of  the  world.  We  profess,  sir,  to 
be  a  Christian  people.  The  melioration  of  the  condition  of  man  is  the 
great  principle  of  our  age  and  country.  The  advance  of  mind,  and  the 
extension  of  the  benign  influences  of  civilization  and  Christianity,  are 
among  the  characteristics  of  our  day.  Good  men  are  devising  means  to 
alleviate  the  evils  and  to  increase  the  happiness  of  man.  Millions  are  an 
nually  expended  to  promote  all  these  objects,  and  I  verily  believe  the  day 
is  not  far  distant,  when  "nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation,  nei 
ther  will  they  learn  war  any  more." 

I  have  said  that  this  war  was  wrong  in  principle  and  unjust  in  its  incep 
tion.  It  is  a  lust  for  territory.  New  Mexico  and  California  must  be  ceded 
to  us,  or  there  will  be  no  peace.  This  I  suppose  to  be  that  for  which  we 
are  contending,  and  for  this  we  are  content  to  send  our  fellow-citizens  to  a 
pestilential  climate,  to  be  hurried  by  "vomito"  or  slaughter  to  their  final 
account.  I  shudder  at  the  thought  of  a  result  so  awful,  and  I  would  not 
for  the  world  take  the  responsibility  of  it.  We  are  told  of  the  glory  this 
war  will  shed  over  our  country.  There  can  be  no  glory  without  principle, 
and  no  principle  in  a  departure  from  that  rule  of  doing  "unto  others,  as  we 
would  that  they  should  do  unto  us." 

But  this  war  is  as  unsound  in  policy  as  it  is  in  principle.  It  is  waged  for 
territory.  Suppose  this  had  been  declared  by  the  President  when  he  called 
for  men  and  money,  after  the  battles  of  Palo  Alta  and  llesaca  de  la  Palma, 
would  we  have  placed  at  his  disposal  ten  millions  of  dollars  and  fifty  thou 
sand  men?  Certainly  not.  For  what  do  we  desire  more  territory  ?  Is  it 
to  disturb  the  compromises  of  the  Constitution,  and  to  give  a  preponderance 
to  the  institution  of  slavery?  What  section  of  the  Union  can  desire  the  ter 
ritory  in  question  ?  Can  it  serve  any  good  purpose  to  the  West,  to  bring 
millions  of  acres  of  land  into  competition  with,  and  to  retard  the  settlement 
of,  that  yet  unpeopled  and  magnificent  region  ?  We  of  the  North  do  not 
want  it.  Do  the  South  desire  it?  Short-sighted 5  indeed, must  be  that  south- 


8 

ern  man  who  will  venture  to  rouse  up  the  spirit  which  has  already  mani 
fested  itself.  Time  will  demonstrate,  that  he  was  the  best  friend  to  his 
country ,  who  opposed  the  addition  of  even  a  single  acre  of  Mexican  territory. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  hold  the  President  responsible  for  this  war.  He  com 
mitted  the  first  act  of  hostility,  and  which  he  must  have  known  would  re 
sult  in  collision,  and  it  is  therefore  truly  his  war.  To  whom  else  can  it  be 
attributed — not  to  the  war-making  power  of  the  United  States,  for  the  Pres 
ident  never  consulted  Congress,  then  in  session,  until  he  had  committed  a 
hostile  act,  by  crossing  a  disputed  boundary,  and  invading  Mexican  territory. 
He  pursued  a  very  different  course  towards  England  on  the  Oregon  ques 
tion,  although  he  asserted  our  title  was  clear  and  unquestionable  to  the 
whole  territory. 

We  hear  much  said  about  the  honor  of  the  country  in  relation  to  this  war. 
Well,  sir,  I  may  not  have  as  much  refinement  of  feeling  as  some  men,  but 
I  have  no  idea  of  honor  without  justice,  and  when  we  talk  of  the  honor  of 
conquering  a  weak  adversary,  we  misapply  the  term.  "  What  can  be 
more  for  the  honor  of  the  nation  than  its  being  governed  by  justice,  by 
humanity,  by  magnanimity?  Are  not  the  opposite  qualities  incompatible 
with  the  national  honor?" 

I  have  not  much  faith  in  this  magic  word  called  honor.  I  cannot  find  it 
in  calling  our  citizens  from  their  homes  and  families,  and  sending  them  by 
hundreds  and  thousands  to  die  by  pestilence  or  fall  in  battle,  whatever  may 
be  the  prowess  of  their  arms. 

This  war,  from  its  inception  to  this  hour,  reflects  no  honor  upon  the 
country,  except  the  skill,  bravery,  and  noble  bearing  of  the  gallant  general 
and  the  army  under  his  command.  War  is  the  exercise  of  a  most  fearful 
power;  always  bringing  in  its  train  the  most  direful  consequences,  costing 
millions  of  money  and  rivers  of  blood,  and  spreading  abroad  a  demoralizing 
influence  that  years  will  not  overcome.  1  will  not  attempt  a  description  of 
the  horrors  which  follow  in  its  train;  it  is  the  most  direful  of  all  calamities 
that  can  befal  both  the  victors  and  the  vanquished;  it  brings  curses  upon 
both,  commensurate  with  the  base  and  wicked  passions  which  it  engenders, 
and  ours  is  the  country  in  which  a  maximum  of  these  evils  must  be  felt. 
We  have  no  excess  of  population.  Our  soldiers  are  the  farmers,  mechanics, 
and  laborers  of  the  country,  engaged  in  times  of  peace  in  the  various  pur 
suits  of  the  land.  What  will  be  the  condition  of  those  who  return  and  are 
disbanded — injured  in  morals,  in  health,  as  well  as  in  capacity  to  return  to 
their  former  pursuits.  And  yet,  strange  to  say,  that  "this  mass  of  human 
suffering  awakens  comparatively  little  thought,  and  calls  forth  little  sympa 
thy."  "  We  shed  the  blood  of  our  fellow-creatures,  and  shout  exultingly 
over  victories  which  carry  desolation  and  wo  into  thousands  of  families. " 

An  English  writer,  in  his  "reflections  on  war,"  says:  "What  a  scene 
must  a  field  of  battle  present,  where  the  slain  are  left  without  assistance 
and  without  pity,  with  their  wounds  exposed  to  the  piercing  air.  Far  from 
their  native  home,  no  tender  assiduities  of  friendship,  no  well-known  voice, 
no  wife,  or  mother,  or  sister,  is  near  to  soothe  their  sorrows." 

Is  this  a  picture  too  highly  colored?  Hear  what  a  young  soldier,  who 
was  in  the  fight  at  Monterey,  says,  in  writing  to  his  friends  at  home.  (I 
read  from  his  letter:) 


"  During  the  fight  of  the  second  day  a  flag  of  cessation  wag  sent  to  the  Mexicans,  requesting- 
a  few  hours  to  bury  the  dead,  which  were  strewn  in  frightful  piles  over  the  field.  This  was  re 
fused,  and  the  wounded  and  dead  lay  where  they  fell,  beneath  the  rays  of  a  scorching  sun,  till 
the  battle  was  ended.  It  was  then  almost  impossible  for  our  men  to  endure  the  stench  while 
they  heaped  dirt  over  the  poor  fellows  where  they  lay.  The  bodies  of  the  dead  were  as  black 
as  coals;  many  of  them  were  stripped  of  their  clothing  by  the  Mexicans  during  the  night. 
Several  of  those  who  were  wounded  during  the  first  day's  fight,  crawled  into  ditches  and  holes 
to  avoid  the  balls  which  were  rolling  like  hail  stones  over  the  field,  whence,  exhausted  by  the 
loss  of  blood,  they  were  unable  to  crawl,  or  give  signs  of  distress.  As  a  consequence  many 
perished,  though  some  who  were  found  in  this  condition  were  removed,  and  are  recovering." 

But  to  return  to  the  same  English  writer.  He  says:  "If  statesmen,  if 
Christian  statesmen,  had  a  proper  feeling  on  this  subject,  and  would  open 
their  hearts  to  the  reflections  which  such  scenes  must  inspire,  instead  of 
rushing  eagerly  to  arms,  from  the  thirst  of  conquest,  or  the  thirst  for  gain, 
would  they  not  hesitate  long,  would  they  not  try  every  expedient,  every  len 
ient  act  consistent  with  duty ,  before  they  ventured  on  this  desperate  remedy, 
or  rather,  before  they  plunged  into  this  gulf  of  horror  ?"B^ncroft  UbfliP 

But  when  this  war  is  to  cease  is  a  question  of  great  importance,  and  very 
difficult  to  answer.  If  not  until  Mexico  agrees  to  give  up  her  provinces,  the 
day  is  remote.  They  are  a  race  proverbial  for  their  pride  and  arrogance. 
And  who  is  to  make  the  peace  is  a  question  difficult  to  solve.  Should  Santa 
Anna  accept  our  three  millions,  who  knows  but  a  revolution  may  place 
some  other  general  at  the  head  of  the  government,  who  will  have  his  price 
too.  Look  at  this  war  in  whatever  light  we  may,  and  it  is  not  in  human 
foresight  to  predict  how,  or  when,  it  is  to  cease.  With  ail  my  heart  I  shall 
hail  the  day,  come  when  it  may,  which  will  secure  a  peace,  and  put  an  end 
to  this  miserable  strife.  I  had  no  part  nor  lot  in  bringing  it  upon  us;  I  will 
take  none  in  carrying  it  on.  I  would  this  day  vote  for  a  resolution  instruct 
ing  the  President  to  order  our  troops  back  to  the  Rio  Grande,  and,  in  order 
to  secure  a  peace  without  further  loss  of  life,  across  the  disputed  boundary. 
I  believe  such  a  proceeding  would  be  one  of  policy;  I  know  it  would  be 
one  of  justice  and  humanity.  "What  a  monstrous  absurdity  would  it  not 
be  to  go  on  fighting  until  we  have  wasted  fifty  millions  of  dollars  more  than 
the  fifty  which  we  have  already  spent,  (if  all  the  accounts  were  in  and  paid) 
to  obtain  what  we  could  have  readily  purchased  without  going  to  war — and 
possibly  might  be  able  to  purchase  now  for  a  tenth  part  of  the  money;  and 
(O  how  transcendently  more  worthy  of  consideration!)  without  the  sacrifice 
of  a  single  life  of  those  dear  friends,  beloved  companions,  and  countrymen 
of  ours,  who  have  fallen  in  the  fight,  or  who — far  direr  fate — victims  to  an 
unnatural  climate,  are  now  mingled  with  the  clods  of  the  valley. 

The  war  we  are  waging  I  deem  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  spirit 
of  our  institutions.  It  was  never  contemplated  by  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution,  who  wisely  left  the  question  of  peace  or  war  with  Congress,  that  a 
President  of  the  United  States  should  do  that  indirectly  which  he  had  no 
power  to  do  directly.  The  President  tells  us  about  the  outrages  inflicted 
upon  us  by  Mexico,  and  talks  about  indemnity.  Indemnity  for  what — the 
cost  of  the  war,  or  what  Mexico  owes  us  ?  The  high  value  some  place  upon, 
her  provinces  might,  in  their  estimation,  furnish  indemnity  for  these  ;  but, 


10 

sir,  will  it  furnish  indemnity  for  the  hundreds  slain  upon  the  field  of  battle., 
or  who  have  fallen  by  the  disease  of  a  sickly  climate  ?  Will  it  wipe  out  the 
black  slain  upon  the  annals  of  our  country  ?  Will  it  restore  to  life,  and  to 
their  country,  a  Ringgold,  a  Watson ,  a  Ridgely,  a  Cross,  a  Cochran,  and 
others  equally  worthy,  who  have  fallen?  What  indemnity  has  he  to  offer 
to  the  widowed  mothers  and  helpless  orphan  children  ?  Will  it  restore  a 
leg  or  an  arm  to  the  unfortunate  cripple  who  was  wounded  in  the  fight? 
Will  it  restore  the  shattered  constitution  of  the  diseased  soldier?  Will  it 
make  the  poor  and  degraded  debauchee  the  moral,  perchance  the  Christian, 
man  the  war  found  him?  Will  it  provide  the  means  to  pay  the  hundreds 
of  additional  pensioners?  No,  Mr.  Chairman ;  demand  indemnity  for  all 
these,  and  Mexico  would  not  be  left  with  an  acre  to  stand  upon. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  other  and  very  serious  objections  to  this 
war;  indeed,  sir,  their  name  is  "  legion."  It  is  not  only  unsound  in  policy 
and  principle,  but  it  is  a  flagrant  act  of  injustice  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  It  has  entirely  engrossed  the  legislation  of  Congress.  Public  busi 
ness,  not  growing  out  of  the  war,  is  wholly  or  nearly  neglected.  The  pri 
vate  claims  upon  the  Government  have  also  been  disregarded.  The  Presi 
dent,  at  the  commencement  of  the  session,  in  his  annual  message,  suggested 
this  course.  Hear  what  he  says,  sir — ee  During  the  existence  of  the  war 
with  Mexico,  all  our  resources  should  be  husbanded,  and  no  appropriations 
made,  except  such  as  are  absolutely  necessary  for  its  vigorous  prosecution,'5 
&c.  "By  the  observance  of  this  policy  at  your  present  session,  large 
amounts  may  be  saved  to  the  Treasury."  How  faithfully  has  his  party  in 
this  House  followed  his  bidding.  All  the  other  great  interests  of  the  country 
have  been  overlooked  in  the  efforts  to  carry  on  this  war  u  vigorously." 
Look^  sir,  at  the  calendar,  and  see  the  vast  amount  of  important  public  busi 
ness  which  will  not  be  touched  this  session.  Prom  all  sections  of  the  coun 
try,  appeals  are  made  to  Congress  for  legislation  upon  measures  of  public 
interest.  But,  sir,  not  only  must  all  the  ' '  resources"  of  the  Government 
be  "  husbanded"  for  the  "  vigorous  prosecution"  of  the  war,  but  the  whole 
session  has  been  wasted  in  legislation  connected  with  it.  Look ,  also ,  at  the 
private  claims  upon  the  Government,  and  tell  me,  sir,  what  justice  can  the 
claimants  expect  from  this  Congress,  with  this  war  of  the  President's  upon 
our  hands?  There  is  no  time  to  do  justice  to  them  now.  Has  there  ever 
been  a  session  of  Congress,  since  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  when  the 
great  interests  of  the  country,  public  and  private,  have  been  so  entirely  ne 
glected  as  at  this  session?  And,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  not  all;  appropria 
tions  made  at  the  last  session  for  the  construction  of  important  public  works 
will  be  retained  in  the  Treasury,  and  all  work  suspended  during  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  war.  The  resources  of  the  Government  must  be  "  hus 
banded,"  and  hence  the  necessity  of  suspending  all  public  works,  except 
*'  such  as  are  absolutely  necessary"  to  carry  it  on.  During  the  last  session 
of  Congress,  it  was  my  good  fortune  to  carry  through  this  House  (and  it 
also  passed  the  Senate)  a  bill  for  the  construction  of  defensive  works  at  the 
Narrows  in  the  harbor  of  New  York.  It  was  a  measure  of  great  difficulty, 
and  had  been  before  Congress  for  many  years.  To  my  great  regret,  I  learn 
that  the  sum  ($100,000)  appropriated  for  that  object  is  needed  in  the  Trea- 


11 

sury  to  carry  on  the  war  with  "  vigor"  and  that  the  work  will  be  sus 
pended  until  we  secure  an  "  honorable  peace"  with  Mexico. 

It  has  been  well  said,  that  "  misfortunes  never  come  alone."  The  mea 
sures  of  the  Administration  approve  the  saying.  In  addition  to  the  war,  the 
Subtreasury  scheme  has  been  put  in  operation.  I  suppose  it  will  have  to 
work  its  own  cure,  as  it  did  under  the  Van  Buren  administration.  But  for 
party  consistency,  the  Administration  would  now  recommend  its  repeal.  It 
has  not  been  in  full  operation  two  months,  and  a  bill  has  been  reported  to 
us  materially  modifying  its  provisions.  Why  have  not  the  Administrtiaon 
the  honesty  to  come  out,  and  say  it  will  not  work,  and  recommend  Congress 
to  repeal  it?  If  the  measure  was  not  fraught  with  mischief,  the  best  way 
to  let  the  people  become  acquainted  with  it,  would  be  to  test  its  operation, 
upon  the  varied  interests  of  the  country.  But  the  Administration  do  not, 
and  cannot,  carry  the  specie-clause  into  effect;  it  is  not  practicable.  They 
were  told  it  was  a  measure  of  mischief,  and  but  for  the  act  of  the  last  ses 
sion,  authorizing  the  issue  of  Treasury  notes,  (which  were  used  as  currency,) 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  could  not  have  carried  on  the  Government. 
It  is  considered  by  all  intelligent  merchants,  and  practical  men,  who  are 
not  bound  by  party  ties,  an  unfortunate  and  an  unwise  measure. 

The  failure  of  the  crops  throughout  Europe,  and  the  famine  in  Ireland^ 
have  opened  to  us  an  extensive  market  for  all  our  agricultural  productions; 
and  but  for  this,  with  a  war  on  our  hands,  the  Subtreasury,  and  importa 
tions  far  exceeding  in  amount  our  ordinary  exports,  we  should  have  had  be 
fore  this  a  sad  state  of  affairs.  Flour  and  provisions  would  have  gone  down, 
to  a  point  lower  than  they  have  reached  in  many  years,  and  commercial 
embarrassment  must  have  followed.  The  large  amount  of  specie  coming 
into  the  country,  consequent  upon  increased  exports,  is,  under  existing  cir 
cumstances,  of  essential  benefit.  But  will  this  state  of  things  continue— 
can  we  keep  it  here?  Specie  which  flows  into  a  country  in  a  regular  course 
of  trade,  must,  of  necessity,  enrich  the  country.  But  that  which  is  now 
coming,  comes  from  causes  that  will  cease  to  exist  on  the  return  of  an 
abundant  harvest  in  Europe.  With  a  diminished ,  and  diminishing  demand 
for  our  products, and  an  increased  importation  which  will  take  place  under 
the  present  tariff,  this  specie  will  go  back  to  Europe,  and  perhaps  more 
with  it. 

I  trust,  sir,  we  may  not  realize  anything  of  this  kind;  but  should  it  come, 
then  the  Subtreasury  will  be  felt;  and,  I  fear,  severely  felt.  The  Govern 
ment  would  have  the  power  to  crush  every  monied  institution  in  the  coun 
try;  and  if  exercised,  a  suspension  of  specie  payments  by  the  banks  would 
take  place,  and  the  credit  of  the  country  would  be  ruined.  A  specie  circu 
lation  we  can  never  have,  unless  we  are  content  to  go  back  to  the  dark 
ages.  There  are  manifold  inconsistencies  and  inconveniences  arising 
from  it. 

The  weakness  and  wickedness  of  this  measure  have  been  so  thoroughly 
exposed,  and  with  such  signal  ability,  by  my  friend  and  colleague  from  the 
city  of  New  York,  (Mr.  MILLER,)  that  it  is  not  worth  while  for  me  to  con 
sume  my  time,  or  the  time  of  the  committee,  in  discussing  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  money,  we  are  told,  is  the  "sinews  of  war,"  and  is  in 
dispensable  in  its  prosecution.  How  does  the  Administration  propose  to 


12 

obtain  it?  Will  it  resort  to  direct  taxation?  How  does  it  propose  to  carry 
on  this  war?  The  country  will  not  sanction  an  accumulating  debt.  We* 
have  been  experimenting  upon  our  revenue  system,  and  have  reduced  our 
receipts,  when  the  exigencies  of  the  country  demanded  a  material  increase. 
We  have  repealed  the  tariff  of  1842,  which,  although  defective  in  some  of 
its  details,  brought  more  prosperity  to  the  country  than  any  which  preceded 
it,  and  was  yielding  the  largest  amount  of  revenue.  We  have  substituted 
for  it  a  system  which  will  not  meet  the  expectation  of  its  friends  as  a  reve 
nue  measure,  and  this  at  the  very  time  we  had  this  war  on  our  hands. 
And  why  was  this  act  repealed  at  such  a  moment?  Why,  sir,  because  a 
visionary  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  asserted  that  "the  lowest  rate  of  duty 
would  yield  the  largest  amount  of  revenue."  And  one  of  his  party  adher 
ents  on  this  floor  ventured  the  wild  assertion,  that  a  uniform  duty  of  five 
per  cent,  would  yield  a  larger  amount  than  a  higher  rate.  It  was  shown  in 
both  ends  of  this  Capitol,  that  the  proposed  change  in  the  tariff  would  result 
in  a  large  diminution  of  the  revenue  from  imports.  And  the  distinguished 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  WEBSTER)  showed  most  satisfactorily  to  my 
mind,  and  I  believe  to  every  unprejudiced  man  in  the  country,  that  upon 
only  six  articles  of  import  there  would  be  a  falling  off  in  the  revenue  of  over 
three  millions  of  dollars.  And  he  was  sustained  in  this  opinion  by  an  intel 
ligent  merchant  of  the  city  of  New  York,  a  friend  of  the  Administration, 
whose  letter  he  read  to  the  Senate,  and  which  has  been  spread  before  the 
country.  It  is  but  a  little  moie  than  one  year  since  the  Secretary  of  (he 
Treasury  made  to  Congress  his  report  on  finance,  and  upon  which  report 
the  present  tariff  act  was  framed.  One  of  the  prominent  features  of  that 
report  is,  as  I  have  said,  that  low  duties  yield  the  largest  revenue;  this 
seems  to  have  been  then  the  cherished  opinion  of  the  Secretary. 

But  let  us  look  at  his  report,  made  to  the  Senate  a  few  days  since,  and 
we  will  find  that  he  has  changed  his  ground.  He  seems  to  have  discov 
ered  that  an  increase  of  duty  on  many  articles  will  increase  the  revenue. 
He  is  no  doubt  correct;  and  had  he  proposed  a  fair  revision  of  the  act,  I 
^vould  have  had  charity  to  believe  that  he  was  honest  in  what  he  said;  but 
the  report  is  a  little  contemptible,  electioneering  document,  betraying  inca 
pacity  and  ignorance;  a  mere  trick,  to  gain  a  party  advantage — to  soothe 
Pennsylvania  and  Louisiana  by  an  increased  duty  on  coal,  iron,  and  sugar. 
It  is  a  direct  appeal  to  the  working  classes;  recommends  among  other  arti 
cles  an  increase  of  the  duty  on  cloths  and  cassi meres  costing  over  four  dollars 
the  square  yard;  on  printed  calicoes  costing  over  thirty  cents;  and  on  shirt 
ing  muslin  costing  over  twenty  cents;  with  a  reduction  of  duty  on  some 
few  articles.  Why,  sir,  does  he  expect  that  such  goods  will  be  imported? 
A  cassi  mere  at  four  dollars  is  an  article  larely  seen,  and  the  other  articles 
are  rarely  imported.  I  have  neither  time  or  disposition  to  pursue  this  report; 
its  aim  and  object  is  to  make  political  capital,  rather  than  to  increase  the 
revenue. 

I  have  a  few  words  to  say  in  relation  to  the 'tariff  act  of  the  last  session. 
The  Secretary  is  right;  it  does  require  revision;  a  change  in  it  is  certainly 
demanded.  But  before  I  can  vole  for  any  alteration,  or  a  tax  upon  the  free 
list,  I  must  have  the  principles  of  the  tariff  of  1842  restored.  REVENUE, 


13 

\vith  protection  to  AMERICAN  LABOR,  is  what  I  contend  for,  and  I  will 
never  yield  the  principle  until  I  am  satisfied  of  my  error. 

This  question  of  protection  can  never  be  too  often  agitated  in  this  Hall. 
It  is  the  duty  of  those  who  believe  in  it  to  keep  it  before  this  House  and 
the  country.  Is  this  nation  to  avail  itself  of  the  blessings  showered  upon 
it  by  a  benign  Providence,  in  the  abundance  of  every  raw  material  used  by 
man  in  a  state  of  civilization,  for  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  given; 
or  is  it,  like  the  unprofitable  steward,  to  bury  them  in  the  earth?  \\hat 
was  it  that  our  fathers  had  in  view  in  severing  the  links  of  the  chain  which 
bound  us  to  the  old  world  ?  It  was  to  liberate  man;  to  raise  the  masses 
above  the  will  of  the  privileged  few;  to  make  this  country  independent  in, 
the  most  enlarged  sense  of  the  term.  Our  country  is  blessed,  as  I  have 
said,  with  all  the  raw  material  which  are  the  sources  of  national  wealth  and 
individual  comfort.  But  they  are  of  no  value  in  the  raw  state.  It  is  not 
these  which  require  protection,  so  much  as  the  labor  requisite  to  bring  them 
into  use.  What  nation  has  ever  preserved  its  greatness  or  independence, 
except  in  so  far  as  it  fostered  and  sustained  its  own  labor  ;  the  history  of  the 
world  proves  this.  It  is  the  policy  of  Europe  to  keep  the  masses  down;  to 
cheapen  labor;  to  make  man  a  mere  physical  being;  to  keep  him  in  a  de 
graded  condition.  Our  policy  should  be  to  elevate  him,  Man  is  cheaper 
in  the  old  world  than  in  the  new.  What  is  the  condition  of  the  laboring 
classes  in  almost  every  quarter  of  Eui ope?  Why,  sir,  the  industrious  and 
hard-working  laborer  cannot  earn  more  by  incessant  toil  than  barely  sustains 
life  in  a  miserable  condition,  and  deprived  of  all  animal  food.  This  it  is 
that  makes  protective  duties  necessary,  that  we  may  not,  by  importing 
the  products  of  this  degraded  labor,  reduce  its  wages  to  nearly  the  same 
standard  in  the  United  States. 

I  do  not  wish  to  enter  upon  a  tedious  argument  in  support  of  this  doc 
trine  of  protection;  but,  in  a  political  point  of  view,  I  consider  it  paramount 
to  all  others — the  great  American  principle,  which  will  one  day  be  the  di 
viding  line  between  the  two  great  parties  of  the  country,  and  but  for  the 
war,  in  which  the  country  is  now  involved,  would  have  been  the  prominent 
question  of  this  session.  Even  at  this  moment  I  deem  it  of  importance  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  country  to  it.  We  find  that  attempts  have  been 
made,  and  are  still  being  made,  to  deceive  the  people  into  a  belief  that  they 
will  be  benefited  by  the  importation  of  foreign  products,  when  thus  to  im 
port  them  is  to  give  admission  to  degraded  labor  to  the  great  injury  of  the 
working  classes. 

We  have  been  told,  here  in  this  Hall,  that  the  present  foreign  demand  for 
our  breadstuifs  and  provisions  has  been  caused  by  the  repeal  of  the  tariff 
act  of  1842,  and  the  other  measures  of  Mr.  Folk's  Administration;  that  the 
people  of  the  country  believed  it.  What  nonsense  !  Do  gentlemen  really 
suppose  that  the  American  people  are  so  ignorant  as  not  to  understand  this? 
Did  the  tariff  of  1846  cause  the  potato-rot  and  famine  in  Ireland,  and  the 
short  crop  on  the  continent ,of  Europe?  Sir,  it  is  the  misfortune  of  others 
which  has  caused  this  demand  for  our  products  ;  and  while  it  has  saved  our 
country  from  serious  embarrassment,  we  ought  not  to  speak  of  it  in  a  spirit 
of  vain  boasting. 

The  productions  of  the  convicts  at  the  Sing  Sing  State  prison  are  pre- 


14 

cisely  like  the  productions  of  the  pauper  laborers  of  Europe,  inasmuch  as  the 
State  was  contented  to  sell  the  products  of  their  labor  at  lower  prices  than 
would  remunerate  the  honest  mechanic;  and  when  the  effect  of  this  degra 
dation — this  cheapening  of  man — was  so  near  home,  our  mechanics  did  not 
fail  to  perceive  it,  and  to  protest  against  it,  until  the  employment  of  the  con 
victs  in  the  State  prison  at  Sing  Sing  was,  in  a  measure,  abandoned. 

I  call  upon  all  who  feel  any  interest  in  the  laboring  classes — the  nine- 
tenths  of  the  people  of  the  United  States — to  ponder  well  these  things.  Ex 
perience  may  be  appealed  to  with  the  greatest  confidence.  Let  our  records 
be  searched  and  examined,  and  they  will  prove  that,  whenever  the  labor  of 
the  country  has  been  fully  protected,  as  it  was  by  (he  tariffs  of  1828,  1832, 
and  1842,  the  people  of  all  denominations  were  fully  employed  at  good  re 
munerating  wages;  and  when  they  were  not  so  protected,  (as  in  1841,  for 
instance,)  the  industry  of  the  whole  country  was  paralyzed  from  the  intro 
duction  of  this  pauper  labor  of  the  old  world.  I  am  surprised,  sir,  that  the 
great  question  of  protection  has  not  been  brought  into  the  discussions  of  the 
present  session.  It  is  incidental  to  our  whole  system  of  finance,  and  might 
have  been  appropriately  introduced.  I  fear  the  people  will  think  that  the 
principle  has  been  yielded  to  our  opponents,  and  that  we  have  all  become 
the  advocates  of  free  trade.  I  cannot  dismiss  this  subject  without  sounding 
an  alarm,  that  those  who  earn  their  bread  by  their  daily  toil  may  arouse 
themselves,  lest  they  should  discover,  when  it  is  too  late,  that  this  doctrine 
of  free  trade,  or  low  duties,  carried  out,  may  make  man  as  cheap  in  the  Uni 
ted  States  as  he  is  now  in  Europe. 


